Paradigm Destruction Kit

Conventional philosophers of science argue that anomalies are what cause 'paradigm' shifts, but none will say that anomalies alone are capable of effecting the change. (Paul Feyerabend offers a much more radical perspective, in which anomalies are happily tolerated as long as an idea is 'fashionable' - or is it perhaps 'profitable'?) Some will argue that a new paradigm has to be developed to some extent to facilitate the abandoning of the old worn out paradigm; some will point to the need of a need generation of scientists who have been in contact with the anomalies since their early formative years; an attractive view is that new paradigms "catch on", like an egg gellifies, under the heat of the sense of crisis, brought by the anomalies, and bring new gestalts (broad whole world perceptions) that are irresistibly adopted by the majority.

But one thing is for sure, anomalies can be explained away, remain unseen or be actively excommunicated from the scientific discourse. It is striking that these depressing facts were recognized as true during the birth of philosophy of science, in the mid-XXth century, during the vertiginous development of information technologies. Decades after these ideas were formulated, we may ask: Is there a difference between an anomaly discussed only by select scientists, banned from classrooms, and an anomaly appearing in tabloids, YouTube, science blogs, some open access journals, movie theaters and TV docudramas? Of course, you will say.

But the social fracture, this scientific divide, remains, after the information has flowed in so many sectors of society. Most of us have been confronted with facts or purported facts that go into the water of our minds like the torpedo fish — Socrates was compared to this animal — and hit us violently, leaving us in a state of philosophical doubt about our common sense explanations. But somewhere along the way of our investigations, an authority figure steps in our minds and, with a grin of mockery, discourages our questionings : "you don't know enough"; "there's no mystery here, just your ignorance", "so what?", "your evidence doesn't stand to scrutiny", etc. It is tempting to accept the humiliation and get back to our daily unphilosophical lives. Or to philosophical debates disconnected from these most tantalizing questions.

An apt counterattack is to keep those as a modernized kit of philosophical aporias, 'impassable passages', in the literal Greek, ready to be collectively deployed against the scientific establishments that enforce convenient paradigms.

The Binding Problem: How can perception be faster than nerve transmission?
Perceiving the touch and sight of an event is like receiving an email and a postcard that were sent simultaneously. How could the email and the 'snail mail' arrive at the same time? In physiology, they do — but 'normal scientists' turn a blind eye.

Mirror neurons, the organ of innate knowledge
... a neurological organ that apparently allows human beings to learn by imitation even when there isn't the slightest element to base the comparison, the imitation, on

Jasper's Axial Age
"The spiritual foundations of humanity were laid simultaneously and independently... And these are the foundations upon which humanity still subsists today."

The Medieval Warm Period
A major event in the history of humanity — but it doesn't show on the graph which is supposed to account for a rise in global temperatures. How can this be?

Walach, H. & Schmidt, S. (2005). Repairing Plato's Life Boat with Ockham's Razor. The Important Function of Research in Anomalies for Mainstream Science Journal of Consciousness Studies
Gernert, D (2007) Ockham's Razor and Its Improper Use. Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp. 135-140